Red Diesel - UK Government loses.

[GTom]

How come nobody else in Europe seems to have an issue in supplying white diesel to yachts. Never had an issue getting diesel anywhere I have been in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany etc (including FAME free white in many places). So how come we think this is such a soooooo tricky problem in the U.K.
And haven’t seen huge numbers of fishing boats in Lake Solent marinas - nor frankly in most marinas round the U.K., rather the majority of commercial boats tend to be increasing concentrated in a few commercial ports. Plus often the commercial boat pumps have hoses too big for yachts, so have separate pumps anyway.

If not forced, waste of investment for the fuel berth to run an additional fuel. Red cannot be omitted because it is used by the marine industries/heating.

BTW, fuel levy is to cover the costs of the road infrastructure. Does raising the levy from 11p to 57p (red vs white diesel) mean that European governments will invest 5x more in marine infrastructure? Very unlikely...

 

[Topcat47]

In the UK red dye was added to DERV so that the revenuers could spot if someone was being naughty and using Farm Diesel in their private cars. I had a friend with an agricultural contracting business and he was so fed up with being "tested" in his BMW 5 Series Diesel (he has a large tan for "Red" at his yard.) when he last swapped it he bought the petrol version.

 

[macd]

BTW, fuel levy is to cover the costs of the road infrastructure.

It isn't, at least in the UK. Same applies to vehicle excise duty, or "road tax" as most folk call it. Both go into the general pot. The UK Treasury has always strongly resisted allocating any form of taxation to specific types of expenditure (although there have been suggestions that Hammond might do so in some areas).

 

[maby]

If not forced, waste of investment for the fuel berth to run an additional fuel. Red cannot be omitted because it is used by the marine industries/heating.

...

This is true for commercial harbour fuel stations, but less so for marinas. We've been residents at multiple marinas with fuel berths over the years and the number of commercial vessels that would be eligible for marked fuel under EU rules is very small. I doubt that operating the fuel berth for leisure vessels is particularly profitable, but having fuel available on-site is a good marketing point for any marina. This will be even more the case when a ban on the sale of marked fuel comes into force.

 

[dunedin]

If not forced, waste of investment for the fuel berth to run an additional fuel. Red cannot be omitted because it is used by the marine industries/heating.

BTW, fuel levy is to cover the costs of the road infrastructure. Does raising the levy from 11p to 57p (red vs white diesel) mean that European governments will invest 5x more in marine infrastructure? Very unlikely...

My question was why everybody else in Europe manages white diesel at marinas and town harbours but we think we can’t?

And no road fuel duty is not ring fenced for road infrastructure, it is just another input to find general public expenditure.

 

[Old Harry]

My question was why everybody else in Europe manages white diesel at marinas and town harbours but we think we can’t?

And no road fuel duty is not ring fenced for road infrastructure, it is just another input to find general public expenditure.

Sensibly post, it makes one wonder how Europe will fare with out us, they are doomed, doomed i tell ye

 

[Tomahawk]

Genuine question..

Does a barge carrying containers in a EU waterway use red or white fuel?

If the same containers were being carried on trucks the fuel would most certainly be white.

 

[westhinder]

Genuine question..

Does a barge carrying containers in a EU waterway use red or white fuel?

If the same containers were being carried on trucks the fuel would most certainly be white.

Barges being professional users will use red diesel, as far as I’m aware. Red is not allowed in leisure craft or road vehicles. The lower taxation on red is used as an incentive to shift transport away from roads to the waterways network

 

[BelleSerene]

The 'keep it full' folklore is basically nonsense.
If you believe significant water is going to enter via the breather, you could fit a better breather system or even better tanks which don't need the fuel open to the air.

What, like one of those boxed wine bags, or a hospital’s suspended bag of blood plasma, so that it deflated as it is emptied? How’s that going to work with a solid tank where a reduction in air pressure will starve the engine?

 

[BelleSerene]

In the UK red dye was added to DERV so that the revenuers could spot if someone was being naughty and using Farm Diesel in their private cars.

DERVs are Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles. Adding red dye to them is what graffiti artists do. Like this:


What we are talking about here is adding red dye to diesel, which is what we call the oil the vehicle's engine burns to make it go. After Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel

Goddam, where's a pedantry emoji when you need one?

 

[BelleSerene]

Once we have left the EU, it will no longer be the business of another country to solicit from our country's citizens more tax on fuel than our elected government requires.

 

[dunedin]

Once we have left the EU, it will no longer be the business of another country to solicit from our country's citizens more tax on fuel than our elected government requires.

Firstly our Brexit process has adopted all EU regulations into U.K. law as a default.
Secondly, do you believe that giving “rich yachtsmen” fuel cheaper than that paid by “hard working families” for their cars will be a political priority?
What make are your rose tinted spectacles as very impressive!

PS. And is there any moral reason to have lower tax on power boat fuel than car fuel. I certainly don’t think there is any logical or moral case for the U.K. approach to yacht diesel

 

[macd]

What make are your rose tinted spectacles

Red-tinted, surely?

 

[dom]

Firstly our Brexit process has adopted all EU regulations into U.K. law as a default.
Secondly, do you believe that giving “rich yachtsmen” fuel cheaper than that paid by “hard working families” for their cars will be a political priority?
What make are your rose tinted spectacles as very impressive!

PS. And is there any moral reason to have lower tax on power boat fuel than car fuel. I certainly don’t think there is any logical or moral case for the U.K. approach to yacht diesel

Agreed, the benefit is small and the policy is tainted by notions of rich people who don't care for the planet.

Moreover, post-Brexit UK will need to introduce attractive tax breaks to encourage wealthy folk to come/remain in the UK and to entice foreign capital to invest and produce profits here. Vastly bigger numbers will inevitably be at stake against which the odd few £££s on red fuel will pale into insignificance. If it isn't insignificant already!

 

[sailorman]

The solution is simple. Where there is a demand for both full duty unmarked diesel and rebated marked diesel install a second bloody tank!

A bunded 2500l tank with pump and meter costs from £1600 to £2000

Installations with hose extensions will add to the cost, of course, but even so the cost is a long long way from being prohibitive.

The marine industry has had 20 years to get its act together on this and has done virtually nothing (because the government allowed them to get away with doing nothing)

Hole in one, Sir

 

[BelleSerene]

Firstly our Brexit process has adopted all EU regulations into U.K. law as a default.

I think that statement is misleading. The point here is about the UK's interpretation of the EU rule that yachtsmen can't use untaxed diesel for propulsion. The UK's stance is that some self-policing is reasonable - just as it is at home: I can buy, store and use red diesel for an agricultural device at home but not put it in my car. If the UK did not hold that position, it would already be denying yachtsmen the right to pay fuel tax at a 40%/60% split for boats with diesel heating. It has not. It is other nations within the EU club, who take a different interpretation of it, who are applying their interpretation to UK vessels within their jurisdiction. They can, because they have the EU-appointed duty or right to enforce EU regulations. But once UK is not a part of the EU, there will be no relevant tax to collect from a foreign (UK) sale of foreign (UK) fuel to a (UK) foreigner's foreign (UK)-registered vessel. Unless, that is, we are stupid enough to sign up to leaving EU court rulings in primacy over our law and over the decisions of the elected government of our people. (That would be the 'Hotel California' option - you can check out but you can never effectively leave.)

Secondly, do you believe that giving “rich yachtsmen” fuel cheaper than that paid by “hard working families” for their cars will be a political priority?

Political priorities are for politicians. Politicians (and in this case of course, the unelected European Commission) set taxes.

They are not relevant to national customs officers. Customs officers collect taxes.

They are particularly irrelevant to customs officers in nations which the taxes won't be due anyway, as the fuel wasn't bought there.

PS. And is there any moral reason to have lower tax on power boat fuel than car fuel. I certainly don’t think there is any logical or moral case for the U.K. approach to yacht diesel

Here you have smuggled not one but two changes of topic into the argument. Such issues of taxation are separate from moral issues. And the UK approach to yacht diesel is separate from Rump EU nations' collection of Rump EU taxes.

 

[maby]

I think that statement is misleading. The point here is about the UK's interpretation of the EU rule that yachtsmen can't use untaxed diesel for propulsion. The UK's stance is that some self-policing is reasonable - just as it is at home: I can buy, store and use red diesel for an agricultural device at home but not put it in my car. If the UK did not hold that position, it would already be denying yachtsmen the right to pay fuel tax at a 40%/60% split for boats with diesel heating. It has not. It is other nations within the EU club, who take a different interpretation of it, who are applying their interpretation to UK vessels within their jurisdiction. They can, because they have the EU-appointed duty or right to enforce EU regulations. But once UK is not a part of the EU, there will be no relevant tax to collect from a foreign (UK) sale of foreign (UK) fuel to a (UK) foreigner's foreign (UK)-registered vessel. Unless, that is, we are stupid enough to sign up to leaving EU court rulings in primacy over our law and over the decisions of the elected government of our people. (That would be the 'Hotel California' option - you can check out but you can never effectively leave.)

...

Again, you are misunderstanding the action that has been taken against some British sailors in Belgium. The authorities have not been penalising us for not paying the appropriate amount of tax on the fuel we have in our tanks, they have been penalising us for having marked fuel in the tank that is connected to the engine of a boat that is not eligible to use marked fuel for propulsion. There is a case on record of Germany penalising a US boat for having marked fuel in its tanks despite the fact that the fuel was purchased in a country that has never been subject to EU rules.

Leaving the EU (on the right terms) would mean that the UK government was no longer under pressure to stop us buying marked fuel, but it certainly does not protect us from action by EU members if we enter their ports with marked fuel in our tanks. Normal practice is that the EU does not try to enforce this rule on non-EU boats, but there is nothing in international law which says that they cannot.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Again, you are misunderstanding the action that has been taken against some British sailors in Belgium. The authorities have not been penalising us for not paying the appropriate amount of tax on the fuel we have in our tanks, they have been penalising us for having marked fuel in the tank that is connected to the engine of a boat that is not eligible to use marked fuel for propulsion. There is a case on record of Germany penalising a US boat for having marked fuel in its tanks despite the fact that the fuel was purchased in a country that has never been subject to EU rules.

Leaving the EU (on the right terms) would mean that the UK government was no longer under pressure to stop us buying marked fuel, but it certainly does not protect us from action by EU members if we enter their ports with marked fuel in our tanks. Normal practice is that the EU does not try to enforce this rule on non-EU boats, but there is nothing in international law which says that they cannot.

This point has been made repeatedly on these threads and it is gobsmackingly evident that some posters don't have the ability to comprehend this relatively simple fact.

 

[chrishscorp]

This point has been made repeatedly on these threads and it is gobsmackingly evident that some posters don't have the ability to comprehend this relatively simple fact.

+1

 

[Champagne Murphy]

This point has been made repeatedly on these threads and it is gobsmackingly evident that some posters don't have the ability to comprehend this relatively simple fact.

+1. While in another EU country. Having marked diesel here is legal, having marked diesel in Belgium is not.